Forum Topic

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

No doubt all the cycling lobbyists have seen the government's review of "minor road traffic estimates" report published this week.This shows that traffic figures used to justify the introduction of LTNs in 2020 were incorrect - not by a little but by a lot. In London, where figures suggesting that over the past decade there had been an almost 60% rise in minor-road traffic and a 72% rise on the smallest roads, in fact there had been no increase at all. These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick).Overall in London, a previously published increase from 6.6 billion vehicle miles travelled in vehicles in London in 2009 to 10.4 billion in 2019 has now been revised to 8 billion in both years.No doubt Hounslow's new traffic czar is trying to digest these indigestible statistics.

Robin Knight ● 568d138 Comments

So, @LambethLabour @LambethCouncil declare a Climate Emergency, tell businesses they should be using cargo bikes and then whilst purchase more diesel/petrol vans to add to their fleet.

Maggie Dodge ● 528d

MD: "I posted that emergency services are delayed by locked bollards. Not bothered?"RC: We do not know who padlocked the bollard(s) or why. Of course that is a disgraceful thing to do, but just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean that the whole scheme is therefore automatically discredited, does it? For that would be like saying just because one motorist drives like a maniac, all other drivers should be tarred with the same brush and driving abolished.Further, if you are only concerned with safety, then how do you respond to pro-LTN campaigners who point out that traffic in residential areas also causes illness and even death by pollution, as well as accidents (obviously).Finally, we must assume that the padlock(s) were promptly removed, thereby allowing emergency vehicles to move freely again, while vehicle-based pollution, congestion and accidents continue unabated.But perhaps you're "not bothered" by any of that, either?

Richard Cathcart ● 530d

Ha. The leader of Hammersmith's clunkily-named The Traffic Camera Consulting Group was telling me they were expecting great things from this Enfield case. They raised £43k for this. The TCCG thought this would be a template for them to do the same and win a case against the Sands End LTN.They'll probably still go ahead and make the same costly mistake as their fellow car supremacists in Hackney, Lambeth, Enfield and of course our very own OneChiswick who ignored all of the polite advice they were given on how illogical it was to think the Bishopsgate case gave them a free run at Hounslow Council.I do love the tendency of High Traffic Neighbourhood supporters to ignore the increasingly abundant evidence that they are wrong. LTNS work. LTNs are legal. Politicians who put them in are brilliant and entitled to do so. LTNs win votes. Same goes for cycle lanes, bus gates, floating bus stops, CAZ / ULEZ schemes and anything else that reduces the dominance of cars in urban spaces.

Paul Campbell ● 531d

This time it was the “One Community” group in Enfield. Their claim against a LTN was rejected by the judge. Full ruling here:https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/2809At least their case was heard even though the judge rejected all the grounds for claim, unlike OneChiswick who apparently raised over £40k and didn’t even get to court.

Michael Robinson ● 531d

I posted that emergency services are delayed by locked bollards. Not bothered?If  there were no LTNs, put in using false data, and using Covid measures, we wouldn’t be having these “discussions ” at all and life would be safer and better. Rather than some roads “low traffic “ and an obstacle to vital emergency services, and others getting all the traffic the pro LTN people don’t want. Very one sided and helpful if TFL an LCC member to do the research.

Maggie Dodge ● 531d

... not that you'll ever get the other one from Ms.Dodge!MD: "Bollards blocking entrances to LTNs in Oxford were padlocked shut."(From the Oxford Mail, 19 October 2022)Oxford residents become LTN ‘human bollards’People have come together to act as ‘human bollards’ after several of the physical barriers in Oxford’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) were destroyed by opponents.A video posted by pro-LTN pressure group Oxfordshire Liveable Streets shows a group of people standing in the road to prevent cars passing through an LTN traffic filter, where a bollard had been removed. The group tweeted: “WATCH: ordinary residents in #Oxford are now acting as 'human bollards' to protect cyclists, pedestrians and children from drivers who flout the rules, and vandals who have destroyed the physical bollards. Extraordinary, really.” The community action to prevent vehicles passing through the filters comes following months of direct action against the traffic measures.  Anti-LTN activists have ripped out, bent and even set the bollards on fire, as well as graffitied and damaged the planters.This antisocial behaviour has cost Oxfordshire County Council thousands of pounds to repair and replace them. Yesterday (October 19), police were called to Divinity Road at around 5pm.Thames Valley Police told this newspaper a driver attempted to get through the LTNs and a number of people stood in the road to prevent this.Officers attended the scene and educated the driver. https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23061470.oxford-residents-become-ltn-human-bollards/Note that the police didnt actually give the offending driver a ticket, but "educated him" instead.Yet Ms. Dodge would have you believe it is only cyclists who get let off by the police.

Richard Cathcart ● 531d

Bollards blocking entrances to LTNs in Oxford were padlocked shut. Thus preventing emergency service access

Maggie Dodge ● 531d

Maggie will have difficulty doing this as no such government report exists! There is a Times article that selects a subset of London boroughs to try to show that boroughs that introduced LTNs saw a larger increase in traffic.This is based on DfT traffic data which is available for all London boroughs, not just the subset used by the Times. When you compare the increase in traffic levels to the proportional area of LTNs in each borough, the boroughs with the highest proportion of LTNs have see smallest increase in traffic.

Tom Pike ● 534d

This posting will undoubtedly get you into trouble with the cycling lobby. All government reports to it are "false" or can be twisted to mean something different to the main thrust. Perhaps you had better give the Forum a fuller flavour of this particular report just to shut the fanatics up.

Robin Knight ● 534d

LCC want a CAZ in Leeds... and it "seems" they're desperately trying to increase congestion and idling to drive up the pollution stats they need to justify it.... #StealthTaxhttps://www.facebook.com/134335183511/posts/10159298879698512/

Maggie Dodge ● 535d

There was also a bus driver in Wandsworth dismissed for harassing a cyclist.

Philippa Bond ● 535d

Ardent eco-warriors claim that this is all worth it in the name of lower emissions. Yet this argument is crumbling under the weight of contradictory evidence. Figures released this week by the Department for Transport reveal that LTNs have spectacularly backfired, actually increasing the total number of vehicle miles travelled.

Maggie Dodge ● 536d

So much for low traffic neighborhoods which have not helped. Bus gates are not the answer but labour's councils continue against the wishes of the community. A different approach is needed. The money used for low traffic neighborhoods could have been used for better pay for bus drivers and services. Maybe enticing people out of their cars.

Maggie Dodge ● 539d

Don't know why more people don't just use reflective spray on number plates and use the LTNs whenever they want to. It beats arguing with the morons who think LTNs are good for the environment or good for anyone except the few who live in LTN roads.  There is more than enough proof that LTNs are a busted flush.

Steve Taylor ● 541d

You alleged:"These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)."That is simply not true. The DfT first published estimates, subsequently revised, that traffic had increased on minor roads in London after the restrictions in Chiswick were introduced. This has been stated several times but you seem determined to ignore the fact that this makes your allegation literally impossible!You're the one who is determined to repeat a false allegation. If you don't want to be contradicted, you should withdraw the allegation.

Tom Pike ● 541d

Why on earth do you think I would be critical of measures to restrict cars? I'd like and expect to see many more restrictions coming in over the next few years. And the continued build out of a protected cycle lane network too.

Paul Campbell ● 541d

There has been no reply

Robin Knight ● 541d

What false allegation? you seem determined to attack me

Robin Knight ● 541d

“Andy Carter MP Raises Latchford Low Traffic Neighbourhood in ParliamentThursday, 27 October, 2022Calls to scrap the Westy Low Traffic Neighbourhood have been raised in Parliament by Andy Carter MP.Despite some small adjustments to the traffic scheme by Council Highways Officers in recent weeks, the MP for Warrington South has highlighted the continuing opposition by residents to the Latchford LTN in Parliament.In a question to the Leader of the House of Commons earlier today, Andy Carter said: “Roads have been closed to traffic resulting in longer journey times and more congestion. 87% of impacted residents in a survey I conducted say they want it to go back to how they were. Local Councillors need to listen to local residents and scrap these changes.”

Maggie Dodge ● 541d

The journalist put together his own selective analysis based on a subset of the official figures. A complete analysis shows a very different picture: the boroughs with the highest proportion of LTNs have seen the least traffic growth. That also undermines the empty claim that all LTNs do is shift traffic around a borough’s roads.  But you are understating you own contribution of adding your own false allegations to quotes from shoddy articles. Personally, I would have liked both Hounslow and Ealing to be bolder in controlling the damage done by motor traffic to the residents of both boroughs.

Tom Pike ● 542d

I live in grove park and absolutely hate these restrictions, today i have friends coming from Southampton, i have to tell them to go all the way round via the A4 carnage and down sutton court road for an extra 30 mins creating traffic pollution. From day 1 of these restrictions it has been a nightmare with no one wanting to visit due to the fear of getting a fine and the hassle of having to drive all the way around to the a4. Hoping to move house away from grove park asap. The LTNs are the worst thing for us grove park residents especially if you live south of the train line.

Adam Robertson ● 542d

All I have done is to quote from official reports - as did The Times journalist now subject to your jaundiced gaze. Please point me to a single posting by yourself, P.Campbell or T. Pike that is critical of the many moves in Chiswick/ Hounslow to restrict car use in the area.

Robin Knight ● 543d

Don't know why more people don't just use reflective spray on number plates and use the LTNs whenever they want to. It beats arguing with the morons who think LTNs are good for the environment or good for anyone except the few who live in LTN roads.  There is more than enough proof that LTNs are a busted flush.

Steve Taylor ● 544d

Suggest you re-read your post of 26/10/22 17:02:00 and then provide evidence of any of your invented claims about what I think.

Michael Robinson ● 544d

Since you ask, none. That said, we had a great triumph over the zealots earlier this year when 2,000 or so residents east of the A316, faced with having to drive around the Hogarth roundabout and into the endless jams there to reach Chiswick (and that was before the unnanounced, unconsulted Kew-Gunnersbury rail bridge work suddenly made things still worse) signed a protest petition supported by our local councillors. Hounslow council then reversed its ban on us residents turning right into Staveley Rd. - to the fury, no doubt, of cyclists living in Brentford.I'm unclear why you seek to discredit me by claiming that I "invent" things about other people. Who? Your anti-car motives are always transparent.

Robin Knight ● 544d

On many parts of London, this is the truth “ While the car loving LCC LTN residents hear bird song in quiet roads we hear children coughing”

Maggie Dodge ● 544d

https://twitter.com/maggiebmedia/status/1585243375099314177?s=46&t=OIPL2YFgQokpxKuaeoszSQ

Maggie Dodge ● 544d

Why is the cycle lane still“Temporary”

Maggie Dodge ● 544d

Robin, are you anti all LTNs or just the all the other ones apart from the one that you live in? And here is what the anti-LTN journalist who usually writes about consumer affairs simpered when an actual respected environmental journalist tore apart his article in the Times that gets you so excited. And here is somebody mentioned in the article exercising his right to reply with a letter to the editor of The Times. I am sure that a respected writer such as yourself who must be proud of their critical faculties and who must have kept them finely honed will be appreciative of the alternative facts he presents. Otherwise it might start to appear as if you have become just another tabloid-reading ingenu incapable of thinking critically about what the hacks choose to present to you 

Paul Campbell ● 545d

There you go again... inventing things about other people.I think you'll find that the cycle lane along Chiswick High Rd is very real and isn't going away.  Which of the dozens of traffic restrictions in Chiswick (recent and historical) are you campaigning to remove?

Michael Robinson ● 545d

Can you click on a link? I can’t post photos but I usually manage to click on and paste a link

Maggie Dodge ● 545d

You live in a dream, fantasy world Mr. Robinson in which all 70 million people in these islands are cyclists and there are no cars, petrol, diesel or electric.For the rest of us, there is a good editorial in The Times today about "Barriers to Movement."I'd like to share it with everyone but haven't worked out how to copy it and post here. Maybe someone else can help?

Robin Knight ● 545d

I don't think that the cycle lane you can see along King St, Chiswick High Rd, the S Circular and soon to be extended to Brentford is based upon "emotion".It is based upon policy at national, London and borough level.On the other hand, your posts are clutching at straws, inventing your own facts, not bothering to actually read the detail, and increasingly desperate. Labelling people who disagree with you as not "normal-thinking" is simply pathetic.

Michael Robinson ● 545d

Thank you Clr. Hearn - a voice of reason.

Robin Knight ● 545d

No, the figures do not prove a link. But any normal-thinking person would conclude that they are related. Why can't cyclists accept that their endles campaigning based on emotion gets them nowhere?

Robin Knight ● 545d

1. When making a number of points it can be useful to number the paragraphs. As this then facilitates discussion of particular points, rather than allowing opponents to merely avoid the issues raised entirely. 2. As if michael adams

Michael Adams ● 546d

I imagine all reports, all stats are now taken with a pinch of salt .

Maggie Dodge ● 546d

"They have produced absolutely no evidence that the Grove Park LTNs have achieved these objectives."You are overlooking the Steer report that gave numbers for the fall in traffic - I presume you were given a copy when you were a councillor. The report showed that both overall and through traffic had dropped significantly, counter to your speculation.

Tom Pike ● 546d

Well said, and sociology and stats should be a year one module for all physics degrees.

Russell Pearson ● 546d

What Sam didn't mention was that he wanted to have a camera at every single access road into the Grove Park area.So the fines would have gone up by orders of magnitude as well as the rerouted journeys (the ones that weren't fined, that is)Sam seems to believe there is some magical solution out there that would reduce traffic, not mean any change to residents and nobody would be fined, so he will criticise anything that doesn't meet his fantasies.

Michael Robinson ● 546d

Cllr Sam Hearn's long, polemic on the imposition of the LTNs forced upon our neighbourhood was well researched and informative.His opinion on the conclusions given by the borough's councillors on the resultant car mileages and pollution effects were little short of mocking.I would like to believe the dictators seated in Fort Lampton's Ivory Tower will take note of his findings and consider corrective action.I doubt it.

Denis I. Fox ● 546d

I started to read your post Sam, then lost the will to live.  It just seemed to be a long list of whinges. No change there, then.I saw you brought up councils enforcing speeding despite being told multiple times that councils can't enforce speeding (although I'm sure you will welcome the trial Wandsworth are doing to see if some other London specific legislation will stand up legally to fining drivers for speeding)

Michael Robinson ● 546d

Hi Michael - each LTN has its own characteristics. Some good some bad. As substantiated in the data published on the thread by Paul Campbell the proportion of a borough's roads that are in LTNs significantly affects the impact.My point is a very local one and I note that you appear not to have read the rest of my admittedly long post? Perhaps you have?

Sam Hearn ● 546d

Sam, you may want to read this and reconsider "balanced reporting by a responsible journalist".1/ Yesterday, we were treated to another statistics masterclass from anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood journalist Andrew Ellson, of @thetimes.

Since I'm mentioned in the piece - a weird fixation - which cherry-picks DfT data to falsely imply LTNs increase mileage, this is my reply. pic.twitter.com/YblK3355xa— Jon Burke FRSA 🌍 (@jonburkeUK) October 25, 2022

Michael Robinson ● 546d

Michael Robinson has highlighted one sentence from the report in The Times. "the figures do not prove a link between LTNs and more miles being driven".I also read this report and my conclusion was that this was balanced reporting by a responsible journalist. I did not conclude that this was proof positive that there was no link between LTNS and more miles being driven.As those who have studied statistics will have had hammered into them "correlation does not prove causation". In my first year at University I remember a highly esteemed Sociology professor telling us that when a new police station is built (are those were the days!) the level of reported crime goes up. This does not mean, said the professor, that police stations cause crime. It could of course simply mean that the victims of crime now had a place where they could report a crime. But as the necessary research had not been done we could not even draw that conclusion.Let us however consider a specific local case in the Grove Park LTN. The barrier at the junction of Park and Staveley Roads has meant that traffic has been diverted on to neighbouring Burlington Lane. This switch is well documented in the latest traffic movement statistics.The diversion of traffic from one wide residential road with grass verges onto to another wide residential road with grass verges has meant that the distances actually driven by real people have increased i.e. the distance from one end of Staveley Road to the other is shorter than the distance along Burlington Lane from its junction with the eastern end of Staveley Road to its junction with the western end of Staveley Road. Multiply this up by the thousands of journeys a day on this stretch of road and you must have a sizeable increase in air pollution, fuel burned and time wasted driving. There are of course other examples of where the local LTN has increased distances travelled and journey times for local residents e.g the Harvard Hill Barrier. As far as some people are concerned this is a good thing and drivers should be encouraged to use other "modes" of transport or not travel at all. To me this logic is anti-democratic and at heart driven by a meglomaniacal control freakery that is in fact quite scary. But hey, maybe thats just me? Pre-Covid the problem that residents of Staveley Road were most concerned about on their street was speeding vehicles breaking the speed limit. This was confirmed in the poorly advertised work shops held at St Pauls Grove Park by Hounslow Council. I recall no one asking for a diagonal road barrier but instead several people asked for a permanent fixed speeding camera. The Council and the Police refused to consider even a temporary speed camera because of the cost and the fact the street was not an accident black spot. Roll on a few years and we have a permanent barrier built at a cost of well over £100k of public money.In the online survey that accompanied the work shops mentioned above four people identified that Staveley Road Park Road junction as a problem. Four out of over 600 responses. The decision to build a barrier was not supported by the evidence and is total overkill.    Elsewhere on this thread I am quoted as saying that the cutting of speed monitoring cables was "mindless vandalism". I stand by that statement. I walked the roads of Chiswick Riverside and inspected the damaged cables. From memory over two thirds had quite obviously been deliberately cut. So far as I could make out the damage could not have been caused by a vehicle simply driving over the cables. There was no sign of animal teeth marks. The result of the vandalism was that Hounslow Council had even less data to make decisions on and hence what it has chosen to do is not evidence based. The vandalism helped no one. Ignorance is not bliss.It is a striking feature of the imposition of the LTN in Chiswick Riverside that its proponents did not base their ideas on any detailed local research other than the traffic monitoring. They kept on saying (and they keep on saying) that the LTN would reduce air pollution, encourage 'active travel', reduce unnecessary car journeys and have little impact on journey times.They have produced absolutely no evidence that the Grove Park LTNs have achieved these objectives. Am I being cynical in believing that they never intended to do this. Just like the building of police stations increasing reported crime there is little evidence that the reported national/regional increase in cycling is due to anything other than a response to Covid and commuters desire to avoid public transport. The increases in cycling participation have anyway been small in absolute terms although obviously welcome if some people become fitter. Accidents involving cyclists have also increased but then you would expect that if more people are cycling?There was no monitoring of air pollution in Chiswick Riverside prior to the introduction of the LTN and there are no published statitics for air pollution in the area after lock down. So how on earth can any one claim that the LTNs have reduced air pollution in the area other than than on specific streets and measured very subjectively. Does moving the assumed air pollution from Staveley Road to Burlington Lane make this a better place to live?Finally, earlier this year the council installed over a dozen diffusion tubes in the area to monitor air pollution. How data from the diffusion tubes would explain how pollution had changed since the implmentation of the LTN is anyone's guess. If you do not have a base starting point what can meassuring after the event tell you? Traffic Officers were reluctant to explain even where the tubes were sited - fear of foxes one of them said. No data from the diffusion tubes has been published by Hounslow Council. It looks suspiciously like this is just a "backside covering exercise" so that they can tell gullible councillors who do not live in the area that officers are monitoring air pollution in Chiswick Riverside.     

Sam Hearn ● 546d

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/travel-ideas/staycation-uk/a30765439/give-up-flying-anna-hughes/Anna Hughes doesn't fly at all.  Neither does Greta Thunberg.That is extreme.  Rather than everyone just giving up everything totally immediately what is needed is a change where people think about how they travel and change and reduce what they are doing in many cases.  Do you remember how clean the air was during lockdown and how blue the sky was?  How we could suddenly hear all the birds singing in London?  It is interesting to read the article above and reflect.

Philippa Bond ● 546d

The Times report rests on the traffic estimates from just two boroughs, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, compared to the rest of the inner London boroughs. It is based on whether any LTNs were introduced in 2020, irrespective of the number of roads involved. An LTN covering a few streets is hardly like to have much measurable effect on traffic at the borough level. In additional those two boroughs are hardly representative of London boroughs as a whole. 

In fact much more data is available for all London boroughs and the Healthy Streets Scorecard provides estimates of the amount of LTNs in each borough as a proportion of the potential area. If you look at all the London boroughs and use this LTN fractional area a rather different picture emerges. Those boroughs that have the greatest proportional area of LTNs saw the smallest fractional increase in traffic, and that effect is more marked the longer the boroughs have had the LTNs. It also shows that having a small proportion of LTNs, less than 20%, does not seem to have a discernible effect on the increase of traffic in the borough, which is hardly surprising.

Tom Pike ● 546d

It looks like Robin Knight is basing his information in a report in yesterday's Times, but he failed to read the sentence "the figures do not prove a link between LTNs and more miles being driven".Additionally, the DfT data used GPS data used by commercial vehicle operators and a small number of individuals for insurance purposes so certainly doesn't provide a view of overall vehicle mileage.Yet another Robin Knight failure.

Michael Robinson ● 546d

I’d like to remind those who pull  me up on whether or not I believe there’s a climate crisis. I’m still  to be convinced,  because the measures imposed make matters worse,therefore  one does doubt the motives. When Khan and others fly thousands of miles to discuss the problem one wonders. Should  I be bullied in to stopping my 5,000 maximum annual mileage? When Boris holidays in Bognor rather than the Bahamas possibly. Paul with his big car and skiing holidays, should I listen to him on my driving habits. That would be no.  Can’t take any of you seriously, you just want others to make the sacrifices and you want the roads to yourselves. You’ll go down in history, not in a good way

Maggie Dodge ● 546d

"Neither Mr. Laurel/Hounslow nor Mr. Hardy/Shapps had any thoughts of doing wrong. As a matter of fact, they had no thoughts of any kind.'The opening lines of Hoose-Gow seem like a good fit.

Adrian Irving ● 546d

To those who traduced my name earlier in this thread, I suggest that you read a new Department of Transport report. This shows that total vehicle miles driven in ten inner London boroughs (no idea if this definition includes Hounslow) that introduced LTNs or equivalent schemes in 2020 rose by an average of 41 million miles or 11.4% last year as traffic bounced back to more normal levels. Two inner London boroughs that did not implement LTNs in 2020 saw an average of 29 million miles or 8.9%The issue, of course, which the cyclist lobby refuses to address, is that if LTNs simply cause traffic - and related pollution - to be displaced on to other streets not covered by LTNs they are of little or no benefit. Maybe this has happened in Chiswick?

Robin Knight ● 546d

On the subject of Khan and a six person entourage flying to a South America for. Climate Conference“The group’s director Anna Hughes said: ‘Claiming that the Mayor is committed to reducing emissions by using SAF is misleading: so-called “sustainable” fuels don’t actually reduce tailpipe emissions, and are blended with at least 50 per cent conventional jet fuel.’ While it is essential that world leaders meet to discuss taking action on the climate, it is more powerful to demonstrate true climate leadership through our actions.‘Attending such a conference virtually would allow the Mayor’s voice to be heard, while showing that flying transatlantic and adding multiple tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not appropriate at a time when people are dying as a result of rising emissions. ‘

Maggie Dodge ● 554d

Let’s look at the facts.Robin Knight claimed that Hounslow used DfT statistics to justify traffic measures in Chiswick despite the DfT figures being published over a year AFTER Hounslow plans came out.Robin Knight claimed that he was only quoting an article but there was nothing in the article on his claim about Chiswick traffic measures.He fully deserves to be dismissed because he just makes things up.

Michael Robinson ● 554d

The insulting and dismissive responses by pro-cyclists in this thread to anything or anyone who questions any of their claims speaks for itself. Going back to the start of this thread, councils across London did use misleading statistics to justify the introduction of LTNs. If you believe the cyclist purists, Hounslow was not one of them.

Robin Knight ● 554d

I believe with BP it was The Tate and with Shell the Nat Gallery.https://www.desmog.com/bp-oil-controversial-tate-gallery-sponsorship/

Philippa Bond ● 558d

I think it is BP that artwashes / sponsors the arts in the UK - they were probably an inspiration for the opioid peddling Sacklers.  The oil companies also sportswash / sponsor F1 teams - just like Big Tobacco used to do until they were banned for killing too many people - still around 8 million per year.That's more than die globally on the roads - about 1.5 million - and more than die from air pollution, that's another 6.5 million.... so around 8 million combined per year.Companies like Shell don't just have a brand image problem, they have a staff problem too.  For a values led generation like the Millennials and Z's, it is hard to take all that money and believe you are making a positive impact on the world by working for a company that is engaged in destroying it, although the money probably helps.We see a lot of people having crises of conscience around the time their kids are born and deciding to quit oil.  So sportswashing / sponsoring cycling is as much for Shell employees - they get to buy into the line that the company they work for is keeping the lights on while helping the world economy transition to carbon free energy - spending 1% of their huge war profits on some solar and wind generation plus some cycling sponsorship helps with retention.I met some lovely people from the Marketing team at Shell who told us how they were actually a force for good in the world (or at worst, a necessary but temporary evil).  I almost felt bad for them that a couple of Nigerian guys asked some pointed questions about the utter destruction of the environment from Shell's oil spills.OK - didn't feel that bad.  Was nice to see them squirm in their own bullsh*t.  I hope they woke up the next morning and quit.

Ed Saper ● 558d

“More than 700 organisations and individuals have signed an open letter to British Cycling calling for the governing body to "renounce" its sponsorship deal with oil giant Shell.” Trouble in paradise ?

Maggie Dodge ● 558d

British Cycling is only one cycling organisation,  It is the governing body for the sport. It just happens to be the one where there are Olympian and Paralympian cyclists.  We watch Paralympian cyclists compete and yet somehow disabled cyclists at any other times when there are cycles which can easily be adapted seem to be ignored as a group.Oil companies have in the past sponsored major art galleries in different countries but there has been an increasing amount of public protest over the years and I'm not sure how many of those sponsorships still remain. Shell is probably still widely regarded as about the 7th greatest polluter in the world.  Should we be thinking about how much of what they do might be considered as 'greenwash'?There is plenty online:  This was in March:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/15/shell-directors-sued-net-zero-clientearth

Philippa Bond ● 558d

Maggie’s annoyed the money isn’t going to her climate change denier friends. Shame for OneChiswick that not even the dark money fossil fuel financiers want to fund their legal adventures or to clear Grove Park of the scourge of traffic counters.

Ed Saper ● 559d

Maggie Dodge pointed out" British cycling in partnership with Shell Oil ?"Hadn't you noticed ? Paul Campbell has been strangely silent of late.It's like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all over again.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

Phew, that’s ok then. Not an oil and gas company any more

Maggie Dodge ● 559d

Michael,Just because it is you, I'll let you into the secret of how Hounslow picked Grove Park for the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid that you mentioned then forgot that you mentioned.They did a traffic survey every 10m of the 432 km of Hounslow roads, loaded all the 43,200 surveys into Excel, clicked Alt-A-S-D to do a descending sort and top of the list was a road in Grove Park.  Probably. There are some people who claim they picked Grove Park just to annoy retired people in Chiswick so they would spend lots of time asking stupid questions on the internet but I'm sure that isn't correct.

Michael Robinson ● 559d

At 12/10/22 15:39:00 Michael Robinson explained" You claimed not to have mentioned Liveable Neighbourhood bids 2 hours after you mentioned them."And seems to have forgotten that he'd already posted that... " I'm posting this at 14:15 and you can't even remember what you said 2 hours ago."Only I hour and 24 minutes ago !Clearly all this Shell Sponsorship money is going to his head already! michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

You claimed not to have mentioned Liveable Neighbourhood bids 2 hours after you mentioned them.Your quote from the website is a mention.It doesn't matter how many times you ask me about the details of the Hounslow Liveable Neighbourhoods bid, you are asking the wrong person.I've already told you to do a FOI on Hounslow or TfL if you are that obsessed about the answer.Why is that so difficult to understand?But there again, you forgot you had mentioned something just two hours after you mentioned it and failed to do basic research on the timing of the DfT stats and the liveable neighbourhoods bid so I really shouldn't be surprised about your lack of comprehension.

Michael Robinson ● 559d

Shell took their time but they are moving into other areas of business.  Whether this change is enough or fast enough is another question.https://www.shell.co.uk/motorist/ev-charging.html

Philippa Bond ● 559d

Michael Robinson explainedQUOTE:Michael Adams writes:"But who's talking about Liveable Neighbourhood bids, Michael ?Have *I* ever mentioned Liveable Neighbourhood bids ? "Yes.  This is what you said:"quote:Following the council’s successful bid to gain a share of the Mayor of London’s Liveable Neighbourhood programme in March 2019, the south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project was launched."UNQUOTE:Except its not what *I* said Michael I was *quoting* directly from the webpage https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2181/south_chiswick_liveable_neighbourhoodAnd I asked *then*, as I've asked *again* and again what *data" informed the decision to select South Chiswick as a candidate for the Liveable Neighbourhood grant money from among the 430 odd km of roads in LBH ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

British cycling in partnership with Shell Oil ?

Maggie Dodge ● 559d

If you're interested in false profits this series is a really good watch where some of the false prophets of the oil industry regret the 30 years of delay due to their obfuscation on climate change. The tactics are very similar to the anti-LTN/statistics/vaccine/pro-smoking/COVID myth crowd:https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0cgqlv1/big-oil-v-the-world-series-1-1-denial

John Hall ● 559d

Ed Saper explained Zechariah 4:10"Do not despise these small beginnings, for the Lord rejoices to see the work begin, to see the plumb line in Zerubbabel’s hand.”I'll see your Zechariah 4:10, and raise you Matthew 7:15 (always a reliable standby on such occasions)“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

Zechariah 4:10"Do not despise these small beginnings, for the Lord rejoices to see the work begin, to see the plumb line in Zerubbabel’s hand.”As to why to why the denizens of Grove Park are the chosen ones, this is just Hounslow Council's ineffable plan.

Ed Saper ● 559d

Michael Adams writes:"But who's talking about Liveable Neighbourhood bids, Michael ?Have *I* ever mentioned Liveable Neighbourhood bids ? "Yes.  This is what you said:"quote:Following the council’s successful bid to gain a share of the Mayor of London’s Liveable Neighbourhood programme in March 2019, the south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project was launched."So you mentioned the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid.I'm posting this at 14:15 and you can't even remember what you said 2 hours ago. So when it comes to points scoring, I make that 2 nil.

Michael Robinson ● 560d

Ed Saper explained" Jesus after all was a fan of active travel and there are strong indications he would have supported sustainable environmental policies and was pretty much against the killing or harming of children, which might include reducing the number of kids mowed down on the pavement or on their bikes by Range Rovers or vans, and improved road safety "Indeed. But surely Jesus would have been solicitous of the  children living alongside all the 432 km of Roads in the London Borough of Hounslow let alone all the other London Boroughs ? So why did he single out South Chiswick in particular ? Apart from a higher concentration of Range Rovers maybe.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 560d

Michael Robinson explained" If you have read the information from TfL for councils about Liveable Neighbourhoods bids "But who's talking about Liveable Neighbourhood bids, Michael ?Have *I* ever mentioned Liveable Neighbourhood bids ? Why do you keep changing the subject ?He then went on" Or do you think that ranting on this internet forum is a better way of getting an answer? "An answer to what Michael ? You're the one who's been ranting away, ever since your *earth shattering discovery* that the launch of the south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project in 2019 predated the 2020 DfT survey. Its seems both yourself and Tom simply can't get over it - you've actually scored a point at last !But apart from that, it seems you don't actually have much of a clue as to why this favoured project of yours the south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood was chosen at all.I just thought you might be the best person to ask Michael, seeing as you're so keen on it; and given that there were another 432 km of roads in LBH they could have chosen instead. That's all.michael adams    

Michael Adams ● 560d

I took a quick look at the documents from the 2019 consultation for the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood scheme and it details the traffic data for the roads in question - data collected via traffic counters and video cameras.https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/southchiswicklnmap/South%20Chiswick%20LN%20Report%20Final.pdfThe traffic section is on page 34.  This is a map showing the traffic data:https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/southchiswicklnmap/South%20Chiswick%20Traffic%20Counts%20Map.pdfI don't think anyone is now suggesting the scheme went ahead solely based on DFT/ TFL estimates of average traffic increases on minor roads across London.I think what they are suggesting is that the original inspiration to consider the Living Neighbourhood scheme might have been down to a hunch that traffic on minor roads was increasing due to sat navs, Ubers, Amazon deliveries and increased rat running of which the original data showing large increases on minor roads might have played a part in influencing.  Equally, it might have come about from personal experience of using the roads, complaints from councillors or residents or even be religiously inspired - Jesus after all was a fan of active travel and there are strong indications that he would have supported sustainable environmental policies and was pretty much against the killing or harming of children, which might include reducing the number of kids mowed down on the pavement or on their bikes by Range Rovers or vans, and improved road safety is one of the aims of the South Chiswick Liveable Neighborhood scheme.  I suppose we could ask them where they got their inspiration from - they might remember, like that scene in the lift from Working Girl.

Ed Saper ● 560d

Michael, why are you asking me?  If you have read the information from TfL for councils about Liveable Neighbourhoods bids, then aren't TfL and the council the obvious people to ask questions about Liveable Neighbourhoods bids?I'm assuming you have seen from the pro forma the information requested, so why don't you ask TfL or Hounslow for it?Or do you think that ranting on this internet forum is a better way of getting an answer?Hopefully you have at least conceded that Hounslow travelling forward in time to see the DfT data is unlikely to be the answer.

Michael Robinson ● 560d

Michael Robinson explained"If you had done even some research yourself you would have seen that the S Chiswick project pre-dated the DfT data by well over a year."I know that Michael. That information was included in the link I posted from LBH concerning the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme. Didn't you read it ?Oh I see down-post you've re-posted the original link I included three posts ago.  The question I'm asking you Michael, is what data informed the original decision to concentrate on South Chiswick ?Your repeated attempts to deflect attention away from that question, by reference to the later DfT survey merely re-inforce quite reasonable suspicions that you can't in fact provide a satisfactory answer.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 560d

Michael Robinson explained" Michael Adams seems to be thinking that to obtain funding for a traffic survey at 40+ locations you need to do a traffic survey at 40+ locations to prove that you need the funding to do the traffic survey."Er no he isn't. The London Borough of Hounslow contains 432* km of roads. And so what he *is* thinking, is how detailed a survey would be required, if any at all, on all 432 km of roads in LBH to safely conclude that South Chiswick was most deserving of being subject to an even  more detailed survey ?What data would be required to arrive at such a decision ?michael adams  * a very useful statistic, I might add.

Michael Adams ● 560d

Michael, will you ever do some work yourself rather than shouting demands at other people?If you had done even some research yourself you would have seen that the S Chiswick project pre-dated the DfT data by well over a year.See link below for information on TfL Liveable Neighbourhoods programme.  It contains guidance for councils asking for funding and pro forma for councils submitting a bid.https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/liveable-neighbourhoodsAll you need to do is submit a FOI request to either TfL or Hounslow and ask for the bid documents.  I appreciate that means you need to do some work and that is a bit more difficult than ranting at people on this forum but thems the breaks.If you find out that Hounslow's bid was based upon time travel, please let everyone know!

Michael Robinson ● 560d

Michael Robinson Asked" Just so I understand you Michael, you are asking if the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhoods programme announced in March 2019 was influenced by the DfT traffic data released in September 2020."No I'm not. I made no reference to *specific* DfT data at all. That's a complete red herring which *you've* chosen to latch onto, not me. I'm merely asking *you" what data exactly informed their decision to launch the *South Chiswick Liveable Neighberhoods Scheme" the emphasis there being on "South Chiswick" in Spring 2019 ? I imagine, for instance that it wouldn't be data supplied by the Ministry of Agriculture for example. So taking a complete stab in the dark, Robin Knight's suggestion of Ministry of Transport data, of whatever vintage seemed as good a candidate as any. Michael Robinson then continued" That means that Hounslow could provide sufficient evidence that there was a problem with traffic in the area "That area being South Chiswick  By using what data exactly ?That's what I'm asking.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 560d

Michael Adams seems to be thinking that to obtain funding for a traffic survey at 40+ locations you need to do a traffic survey at 40+ locations to prove that you need the funding to do the traffic survey.

Michael Robinson ● 560d

The DfT data showing the rise in minor road counts was first published in September 2020, so you are confirming the point that whatever data was used, it was not the DfT data that Robin Knight falsely claimed.

Tom Pike ● 560d

Just so I understand you Michael, you are asking if the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhoods programme announced in March 2019 was influenced by the DfT traffic data released in September 2020.Isn't it obvious? Hounslow traffic department have access to a Tardis, travelled forward in time to 2020, heard about the DfT traffic data then travelled backwards in time to prepare a bid for the S Chiswick project which was submitted in 2018 and awarded in 2019.To educate you further, being awarded the project doesn't mean Hounslow get all the money up front.  Projects are 'gated' meaning they only progress to the next stage if they meet certain criteria.  In this case, the first stage was the first detailed traffic survey and the consultation exercise that accompanied it.That means that Hounslow could provide sufficient evidence that there was a problem with traffic in the area and the first stage of the project was a more detailed investigation and consultation to allow specific plans to be developed.However that is all too boring.  A Tardis is far more exciting.

Michael Robinson ● 560d

Michael Robinson explained " You said: "These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)." Well.......... what actually happened was this quote:
Following the council’s successful bid to gain a share of the Mayor of London’s Liveable Neighbourhood programme in March 2019, the south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project was launched. To help shape these proposals, the Council ran a public consultation in late 2019 and collected data on traffic volumes, speeds and movements across the area.  unquote: https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2181/south_chiswick_liveable_neighbourhood
So that the detailed studies you quote were only implemented after the decision was already taken to launch the "South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood Project, using funds made available from the Mayors Liveable Neighbourhood programme. And so it remains for you to explain on what data exactly, the decision was made to launch the   "South Chiswick Liveable Neighboutrhood Project in the first place ?  Which unless I'm much mistaken, and as always I stand to be corrected, boils down to either DfT data as Robin Knight has suggested, or maybe perish the thought. no data at al michael adams

Michael Adams ● 560d

"Are you claiming that Hounslow Borough Council (which unfortunately includes Chiswick) did not use these statistics or similar ones to justify their action re LTNs? If it did not, on what basis did it carve up Grove Park, Chiswick east of the A316 and elsewhere in the area?"Maybe I was misinformed that you were a journalist, as you are repeating a question that has already been answered! Not only, as Michael said, did Hounslow use their own traffic counts, the DfT statistics came out in September 2020 after the traffic restrictions had been already announced by Hounslow.

Tom Pike ● 560d

You said: "These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)."The article you cited did not say this.  You did not quote it because it wasn't in the article.  You made it up yourself.  It is a false accusation.Hounslow did their own traffic measurements to plan traffic measures in the area.  They didn't use DfT data.  In the case of the Grove Park area, this was done using cameras or road sensors in over 40 locations in the area.  Traffic measurements were done on multiple dates over several years. In total, there are over 2 million vehicle measurements.  If you have actually visited the area, you will see measurements are still being done (there were road sensors on Hartington Rd last week).  Fortunately, these weren't vandalised as happened on a previous occasion https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/fantastic-mr-fox/All this data is available from Hounslow should you wish to study it.Your claim that Hounslow justified measures in Chiswick based upon DfT data is demonstrably false.  The measures were based on Hounslow's own measurements showing, for example, over 6,000 vehicles a day rat-running along Staveley Rd, 90% taking a short-cut between the A316 and A4.

Michael Robinson ● 560d

I'm unclear what "demonstrably false accusation" I have made here. I simply quoted from a report that showed statistics used to justify LTNs had been used by councils across London to justify their introduction. Are you claiming that Hounslow Borough Council (which unfortunately includes Chiswick) did not use these statistics or similar ones to justify their action re LTNs? If it did not, on what basis did it carve up Grove Park, Chiswick east of the A316 and elsewhere in the area?

Robin Knight ● 560d

Oh dear. Looks like we need to question even harder the true picture behind the stats, graphs and colourful maps we are spoon fed. It makes you wonder what the real picture behind some people demanding the banning of vehicles crossing Hammersmith Bridge  backed up with  surveys, statistics and evaporation theories? Was that dodgy data as well?. I know what I think.

Adrian Irving ● 561d

Jonathan hit the nail on the head.Katherine Dunne is inept and ill-suited to serve the constituents of Hounslow. She let's down the Labour party at every turn.

David Lesniak ● 561d

Ideology not data is correct.  It was ideology adopted by a populist immoral prime minister seized on by left wing councils and the extreme cycle lobby, who could not believe their luck.    This has been persistently seen in Chiswick with LBH egged on by HCC and friends.  And when the facts go against them, they deny and when the consultations all go against these schemes they say they do not count.  What kind of a democracy do we live in. It is as if Katherine Dunne and Shantanu Rajawat are LBHs answer to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwartang continuing with a policy that is doing grave harm to all except a few of their mates.  This needs to change, and with the Labour party moving to the centre ground, expunging the left wing that has kept it out of power for so long, maybe LBH needs to do the same thing and rid themselves of these failed left wingers that have done the Labour Party and society so much harm.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 562d

Tom Pike complaining about false hoods, really ?

Maggie Dodge ● 564d

Once again I see Paul has no clue. Groundbreaking.  CS9 was meant to improve walking and cycling supported by none other than Will Norman, the Mayor's Walking and Cycling Commissioner (they put walking first, not me).So plenty of funding being poured in yet none of it earmarked for what should be, as the title says, his first priority. I love how Paul attempts to point the finger somewhere other than the target.

David Lesniak ● 564d

Paul Campbell explained" Crossing roads with my children on foot is far better now. "As you've now decided to drag your children into this - you and nobody else...When you get the lttle kiddiwinks home, you could maybe sit them down in front of the computer, show them this forum and then explain to them "this is what happens when grown-ups have got too much time on their hands";"see how some of the grown-ups are getting really, really angry"; and for the older ones you might try explaining the meaning of "totally counter productive". If that isn't enough to save them from  the clutches of social media for the rest of their lives - then at least nobody could accuse you of not trying. michael adams

Michael Adams ● 564d

With Guy Lambert as my Sancho Panza! He told me his primary concern was potholes.

Bruce Hammal ● 564d

The Councillors need to push for funding Bruce. Don't let them fob you off. Make them do something positive. Of course money is being spent on cycling because there is virtually no provision for it and all levels of government agree that has to change. The government allocates the funds not "the cycling lobby". It still surprises me how people resent this so much. The budget for roads is 13.5 times the budget for active travel. The entire Active Travel budget for one year in the UK might cover a roundabout renovation on a main road. It would pay for less than one fifth of the Silvertown road tunnel, which is exclusively for cars.If a much smaller fraction of the roads budget was spent on pavements then you would be in waking heaven. Maybe Chiswick needs somebody to set up an "Evil Walking Lobby" because the Councillors are pretty clueless about how to go about lobbying for funding when schemes become available. They wasted their entire last term doing what you are doing - tilting at windmills.

Paul Campbell ● 564d

First you made a demonstrably false accusation, and now you claim it is just a "valid opinion" and complain that disputed your accusation are unwilling to compromise. There are many better starting points if you are genuinely seeking compromise.

Tom Pike ● 564d

Paul - nice try! Councillors can't help if there's no funding. I walked the street with Sam Hearn while he was our councillor and sympathy was all that was forthcoming. Since we are supposed to be prioritising cycling AND walking, how about a 50/50 split on the cash? I'm genuinely glad your kids can now cross the road in greater safety (though they should still look left, look right and left again!) However the experience may be ruined if having crossed they then sprawl flat on their face having tripped on some knackered pavement or other.If a fraction of the time and money expended on cycle lanes was spent on pavements you might have a leg (or two) to stand on.

Bruce Hammal ● 564d

Your local Councillors should help you with that Bruce. LTNs benefit everybody living and moving in them not just cyclists. The reduction in traffic in Grove Park makes streets safer and more pleasant for all. Crossing roads with my children on foot is far better now.

Paul Campbell ● 564d

It would certainly be nice to see a bit more of these oceans of money spent on the walking side of the active travel thing. Many pavements around Chiswick are in a dreadful state and currently the council will only address the problem piecemeal just dealing with the most dangerous trip-hazards while everything else gets a squirt of white paint and that's that. I have been (selfishly) asking for something to be done about my own street where the footways are now so bad that elderly residents walk down the main carriageway on the basis that it's safer than negotiating the broken paving slabs, tree roots and abundant weeds that constitute the pavements. Guy Lambert has kindly helped my cause by telling me that I might be able to enter my road in a sort of lottery for funding a proper resurfacing. Given the millions spent on cycle lanes and LTNs it seems a bit unfair that pedestrians are forced to beg for crumbs from the table.

Bruce Hammal ● 564d

Paul Campbell says "space is now being reallocated away from cars to...walking."Patently untrue. Demonstrably so.As we all know, pavements in Chiswick have been severely reduced in width to make way for the cycle superhighway. I still say CS9 1) because I know it irritates people like Paul and 2) because I have yet to see the evidence of the uptick for traders promised. Hell, we can't even get a new bike rack. Hammersmith has a large (albeit a bit ugly) ne bike garage under the flyover. So easy to put two and two together. I get four. Tom most likely gets 17.246 or some such thing.

David Lesniak ● 564d

Robin, your claim that Hounslow used the DfT data to justify traffic measures in Chiswick isn't an 'opinion'. It simply isn't true.  You made it up.You can moan about 'the cycle lobby' all you like but the measures are a result of the policy of democratically elected administrations at national, London and borough level.

Michael Robinson ● 564d

Yes Robin. Cars have taken over so much urban space that it has got to the point where we almost have a transport monoculture dominating and crowding out all other forms of surface transport. A tiny sliver of this space is now being reallocated away from cars to micro mobility and walking. A great deal more of it will need to be reallocated before safer streets campaigners are going to be in any mind to talk about balance or compromise with the car lobby. We're at least a decade away from that point and probably two or three. So you'll not be getting much change from "the cycling lobby" during your lifetime I'm sorry to say.

Paul Campbell ● 564d

This entire thread has underlined once again the absolute refusal of the cycling lobby to compromise or accept that others who don't cycle (for all sorts of reasons) have equally valid opinions - particularly on LTNs and the way Chiswick has been carved up.

Robin Knight ● 564d

And Radio 4's Tim Harford, the economist on More or Less, also debunked the statistics on traffic increases this morning on his podcast.  His report is at 21mins 12 secshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001cq31

Marie Power ● 566d

I do love the irony of Dr. Tom talking about facts.Precious, really.Tsk, tsk for misrepresenting the facts...

David Lesniak ● 566d

I've been told Robin Knight used to be a journalist. I thought a journalist’s duty to the public was to represent the facts and their duty to those they report on was not to misrepresent them. Accusing a council of using "false" figures to justify a policy when no such figures existed when the policy was announced fails both duties. I’d have thought a journalist remembering what they’d written was rather assumed.

Tom Pike ● 567d

"I have simply quoted from the report."No you didn't. These are your words:"These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)."You are rewriting history, as is indeed the Sunday Telegraph article. First of all, the measures introduced in 2020 were funded by the Government on the basis of COVID, both in the short term to facilitate social distancing, and in the longer term to ensure to try to maintain the modal shift that occurred during the lockdowns. The £2bn package was announced by Grant Shapps on May 2 2020, and Hounslow immediately moved to secure funding. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walkingThere was no mention of DfT figures of an increase in minor road traffic, because those estimates did not exist at that time! The DfT revision that first gave new estimates of traffic increasing on minor roads was published in September 2020, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-appsThe DfT revisions last week still show that traffic on class C and unclassified roads increased in the last ten years. They also show that the total traffic in London on class B, C and U roads was actually in total higher than the September 2020 revision. The recent revision does suggest that satnav's played a less prominent role in directing traffic on residential streets as thought after the September 2020 revision, but still show growth nationally. In fact if you look at Chart 1 of the link below, you'll see the plot in blue of the minor road estimate at the time of the May 2020 announcement, with very little increase in minor road traffic after 2009, the 2019 revision in yellow and the latest revision in green, showing a rather larger increase in minor road traffic compared to before the first revision.So quite the opposite of what you claim, at the time of Shapp's May 2020 announcement and Hounslow's bid for funding, the figures understated the estimate of the increase in minor road traffic compared to the latest revision.www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2021/minor-road-traffic-estimates-review-frequently-asked-questions

Tom Pike ● 567d

I've read the report and no where does it say "These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)." So you didn't quote that sentence from the report.  You made it up yourself.Given it appears that you can't provide any evidence that your statement is true and Hounslow referred to the DfT data to justify restrictions, then it isn't maligning you to point out that you aren't telling the truth.

Michael Robinson ● 567d

Thank you for maligning me Mr. Robinson. I have simply quoted from the report.

Robin Knight ● 567d

"Traffic up our once quiet little road has increased tenfold in the last few weeks, with traffic jams of 10 or 15 cars waiting to join the A4"You do realise that this is due to the roadworks on the A4?  If all you have is 10-15 cars you are lucky.  On Saturday there were over 30 cars queued on Barrowgate Road to get to Sutton Court Road (and mostly then onto the A4), normally there might be 2 or 3

Justin Stephenson ● 567d

I live now in Grove Park - a low traffic neighbourhood. Traffic up our once quiet little road has increased tenfold in the last few weeks, with traffic jams of 10 or 15 cars waiting to join the A4. If that's a low traffic neighbourhood, I preferred the old one, 'cos there were fewer cars.

Davey Harris ● 567d

So what we see with our eyes doesn’t count? Do we ignore comments from seasoned cyclists who “don’t like the Chiswick High Road stretch of C9? How long has it been classed as  temporary? why and what further changes are planned? How long are they allowed and how much money is set aside before they admit defeat? What can be done that hasn’t already been tried. Winter is approaching,  so the number of cyclists will likely decline, motorists increase. It’s only going to get worse. How long can/must we endure this ?

Maggie Dodge ● 567d

Whilst I do love statistics, and I do get them wrong from time to time, there is a danger of using the average across London to draw conclusions specific to Chiswick.The reality is that the LTNs are now in operation in Chiswick, the issue is about measuring whether or not they have worked.  That is made difficult by the fact that Covid lockdowns have rendered data from 2020 & 21 meaningless.  IMO we need 2-3 years of data from "normal" years to properly assess the LTNs, so we should not be looking at them seriously until the end of 2023 or even 2024.

Justin Stephenson ● 567d

" They do indeed hunt in a pack. Cowardly bullies " It's pathetic the way they all seem to pile in at the least excuse, to be honest. It's a cheap shot to refer to deep seated-insecurities manifesting themselves. So I won't. More especially, as they're all being "used" themselves, if they did but know it. Which maybe some of them do possibly suspect already. Which is why they can brook no criticism whatsoever. As it might cause the whole edifice to collapse. As Mayor of London Sadiq Khan* is faced with many insuperable problems. Two of the biggest of which being congestion and pollution. Now the worst thing any politician can do, is to publicly admit they have no answers. Now in reality Sadiq Khan probably doesn't give a hoot how people travel about, fly, levitate, car, walk, PT, cycle just so long as they don't exacerbate his twin problems of congestion and pollution; and thus keep the moaners off his back. ( One must assume that Khan sees the job merely as a stepping stone into national politics) He also knows there is no real answer, even regardless of budgetary contraints, in a City which needs to keep moving 24/7. But then he latches on to a group of eccentrics "true believers". Who on no real evidence at all* sincerely believe it will be possible to persuade millions of people to get out of their cars and ride bicycles, day after day throughout the year. And save the planet into the bargain. So for politician at least, what's not to like ? Now being a cyclist myself, and along with many of my fellow cyclists no doubt I know this is a totally ludicrous idea. Its simply never going to happen. "Progress" such as it is, simply doesn't work that way. It would be a step backwards. Chiswick simply isn't going to revert back to being some sleepy Cotswolds village as much as Jeremy Vine and others might wish. *But it gets Khan off the hook*. And that's the "only" important consideration" where a politician is concerned. Because while congestion and pollution continue to get worse Khan can simply turn around to his critics and say "Well I've done all I can to pursuade people to ride bicycles instead of using their cars. I've even financed a nice cycle superhighway in Chiswick to demonstrate the potential  What more can I be expected to do ? Basically if things continue to get worse, then *it can only be all your own fault, you the voters, as you didn't get out of your cars and onto bicycles *
michael adams * Marxist Scholars, Rabbinical Scholars, Christian theologians, and Islamic Scholars have spent decades if not centuries poring over the finer details of their sacred texts. Already all totally convinced of the absolute truth  of their beliefs, but all just still seeking out those few last truths waiting to be revealed . And so it is with Tom Pike and his statistics. Totally convinced already and yet still somehow seeking that deeper truth. Well good luck with that one, is all I can say.

Michael Adams ● 567d

“Sunday Telegraph piece on the revised traffic figures: In London where figures had suggested a 60% rise on minor rds (72% rise on the smallest rds) there had been no increase at all over the decade (2009-19). This 'rise' was a key justification for LTNs.”“No increase” !!!

Maggie Dodge ● 567d

They do indeed hunt in a pack. Cowardly bullies. Mis information (being kind)is the name of their little game. Hard to combat but fun trying !

Maggie Dodge ● 567d

Richard Cathcart explained " Unless, of course, you consider eg her fellow Conservative Councillor, Sam Hearn, also to be in on this dastardly plot to discredit Cllr. Biddolph" Cllr Biddolph was merely responding to Michael Robinson's underhand attempt to represent her action, as originating solely from herself. Possibly having never been chosen to represent anyone but yourself, you have no conception of the sense of responsibility *some* more conscientious people might choose to attach to that role. The fact that Cllr Biddolph is a Conservative is totally irrelevant; the fact that she was re-elected totally against the national trend, most decidedly isn't. And now you've decided to try and recruit an unwitting fellow Conservative, Cllr Hearne, to your cause, to make it five against one. Which merely proves my point. I myself class five against one, as bullying . What you choose to call it, is of course your own concern. And while I've never voted Conservative in my life and have no intention of ever doing so, I would like to think I do know what is, and isn't, cricket.
michael adams

Michael Adams ● 567d

MA:"" Best not to gang up on someone for fear, rightly or wrongly, of being thought a bully and a coward"RC: Assuming that that is directed at me*, pray explain how one person could constutute a "gang"?And how is throwing someones own words back on them "bullying" or "cowardly"?Unless, of course, you consider eg her fellow Conservative Councillor, Sam Hearn, also to be in on this dastardly plot to discredit Cllr. Biddolph, when he effectuvely rubbiished her repetition of a rogue Basil Brush being to blame?* - If it wasn't directed at me, then apologies as appropriate.

Richard Cathcart ● 568d

Richard Cathcart explained" Reminiscent of the old adage:"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.""The old adage I much prefer is" Best not to gang up on someone for fear, rightly or wrongly, of being thought a bully and a coward "michael adams

Michael Adams ● 568d

Maggie's original post pointing to the revision report made it clear that the raw data is not the issue, but rather how DfT were better able to estimate traffic on the majority of minor roads that don't have traffic counts. It should be mentioned that the Telegraph article is misleading: the DfT revision grouped together B road and residential street estimates for London, so it's not possible to conclude that traffic on just our residential streets has not gone up between 2009 and 2019, as the article implies. In fact for the GB as a whole, it's only the B-road traffic estimates that have been revised to see no growth - residential streets have still seen an increase in traffic over that period. It's possible London followed the national trend.Further, the DfT revisions give a higher estimate for traffic growth before 2009 on London's B roads and residential streets. In fact the revisions mean total traffic since 1993 is higher than previously thought. We have actually suffered a greater overall exposure to traffic on these roads in London over the last nearly thirty years.It's unfortunate that the underestimate of earlier traffic growth on residential streets likely meant that national government didn't give this issue the attention it deserved earlier. It also confirms that TfL and our local councils should, as they have done, base specific schemes on local traffic measurements, not national or regional trends.On a more positive side, the revised figures do show that policies in London have recently been more successful than the DfT previously estimated in reducing car use, and in line with TfL estimates. TfL had already expressed their reservations with DfT's previous estimates, so it is indeed bizarre to see misplaced attempts to smear the Mayor whose policies rested on TfL, not DfT, estimates.

Tom Pike ● 568d

I  get your point Russell, but dirty tricks are dirty tricks and  totally unacceptable.  Sticks and stones and the childish nicknames just make me laugh,  but the stats I find unforgivable and bother me more, personally.  “Sadiq Khan faces threat of ULEZ legal challenge over expansion as leak suggests thousands of opposition responses ‘screened out”.

Maggie Dodge ● 568d

One thing I respect about Tom is that he doesn’t descend to mud slinging. The data is questionable - I’d also like to see more about these traffic counters, and wonder how reliable the data really is - would be good see a robust methodology, otherwise some might think it was cherrypicked and manipulated to prove an ideological point. Raw data is always a tricky old fox.

Russell Pearson ● 568d

Oh the knives are out.  Things get really nasty when their nerve is going . They hate that this stuff is surfacing. Khan’s being threatened with legal action.  There’ll be a lot more false information but we may yet win this fight.

Maggie Dodge ● 568d

Reminiscent of the old adage:"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."Same applies on the internet.

Richard Cathcart ● 568d

It isn't a good reflection of Cllr Biddolph's judgement if she believed a resident's opinion that foxes damaged over 20 traffic counters in a single night was a credible explanation.Certainly Cllr Hearn didn't believe it was foxes and condemned the vandalism.I wonder if Cllr Biddolph's attempt to blame foxes was trying deflect attention away from OneChiswick who had been posting the locations of counters on their Facebook group?https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/fantastic-mr-fox/

Michael Robinson ● 568d

The Councillor is always very careful to attribute her more outlandish and offensive proclamations to unnamed residents. Apart from the time she tweeted in her own words that living in a LTN is like "being trapped in a ghetto".

Paul Campbell ● 568d

Residents certainly did make representation to Riverside Ward Councillors for the Grove Park LTN. I personally attended several meetings along with other residents and accompanied one of the Councillors and his Ward Chairperson to Waltham Forest for a day's visit to observe the various measures introduced there. We had productive discussions until suddenly they got cold feet when they realised there would be outraged and very shrill local opposition, including from some of their close friends and neighbours. Prior to that they had agreed with a lot of the core principles of the scheme if not every form of its application. Then the local residents worked directly with the Council instead. Political will and courage is needed to make change happen. The cycle lane arguably has its origins in local representation from politicians. Paul Lynch, when Chair of the Chiswick Area Committee and MPs Ann and Alan Keen all pressed the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for a review of roads and cycle lanes in Chiswick and the Borough following the tragic death of Marie Fox at the Kew Bridge junction in 2002. They lobbied for increased safety for cyclists. The radial cycle lane artery plan including the route of C9 was drafted during Ken's tenure and then picked up by Boris Johnson. Some of our current crop of local politicians are not the area's leading cycling safety historians. I would always encourage people to try to work with local politicians to change street space. Gunnersbury Ward residents who want to reduce cars on their streets could indeed follow a similar approach, engage with their local Councillors first and then if they are not interested in helping them, go to the Council direct. I personally doubt that even if local residents could get the three Councillors to make positive representation to restrict traffic (no chance) that the Council would be receptive as those three Councillors have built a reputation for being especially difficult for the Council to engage with in any constructive way. It is just expected that they will make it especially hard for the Council to do anything new for street space as a matter of principle This is not true of the Councillors from the other Wards. It's not about politics. I would expect the Council to now spend their time and scarce funding to the west of the Borough unless a sizeable group of residents really push them very hard. Jack Emsley of Homefields Ward has taken up the cause of pedestrian crossings and improved safety for cyclists at the Hartington Road and A316 junction with the local AM Nick Rogers and I sincerely wish him a lot of luck in lobbying TfL for that to happen as it is desperately needed.

Paul Campbell ● 568d

Cllr Biddolph according to the Chiswick Calendar demanded that Cllr Lambert withdraw his claims since an individual saw foxes playing with the cables.  So based on this it seems Cllr Biddolph was quite happy to go with the evidence,  did Cllr Biddolph bother to inspect the 20 out of 37 cables all damaged the same evening? I inspected all the cables myself the following day and took photos,  all were clean cuts,  even Cllr Hearn called in 'Mindless Vandalism'.Statement below from Cllr Biddolph as reported by the Chiswick Calendar. Full article available here https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/fantastic-mr-fox/'Please could you retract your comments in the Chiswick Calendar article blaming people for this act and apologise for them.  You have had the email, below, saying quite clearly it is done by foxes.  It is irresponsible to assume it is done be people’.'

Matthew Swain ● 568d

Michael Robinson can't resist putting others' words in my mouth.  I reported that a resident blamed the damaged traffic counters on foxes.  But let's not the facts get in the way of a personal attack. As for people not engaging with Chiswick Gunnersbury ward councillors, that's not the evidence I have from my email inbox, council phone or when walking round Chiswick Gunnersbury ward.

Joanna Biddolph ● 568d

So are you claiming that the LTN's in other wards were the direct result of representations made by residents of those wards, to their respective Councillors ?I don't know the answer to that question; only that the opposition to LTN's within wards where LTN's were in fact introduced, by some residents, might suggest that probably that wasn't the case. And that those decisions, which you happen to agree with, were in fact imposed from above. And that you're seeking post-facto to legitimise them, with some spurious ward based democratic mandate. Otherwise, why the need to bring Councillors into it at all ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 568d

For the real enthusiasts of modal change, evidence is unnecessary to support their overarching aim to 'make the world a better place' by reducing motor traffic by whatever means. I remember, when faced with complaints about greater congestion and longer journey times, one evangelical local politician said gleefully, 'That's the point!'

Peter Evans ● 568d

No - the residents of Gunnersbury Ward will just have to put up with living on more dangerous and polluted streets than the majority of people living in the other Chiswick Wards whether they think they voted for that or not. That's what those Councillors stand for. That's democracy.

Paul Campbell ● 568d

Paul Campbell explained " It is only Gunnersbury Ward in Chiswick that is now lagging and punishing its residents with high traffic volumes in minor streets as nobody will engage with the Councillors there. "Those being the councillors they duly elected, only 5 months ago.So if they don't toe the line, what's next on the agenada ?Annexation ?michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 568d

Robin Knight's claims are totally spurious though.  I challenge him to cite a single reference to the DfT's national data used as justification for traffic measures within Hounslow.DfT collect data to measure long term national trends.  When a local authority is planning traffic measures, they collect more detailed data for specific roads.Long term historical data isn't that relevant for this.  What matters is what the traffic is *now* and what issues it is creating.So if traffic measurements on Staveley Rd showed that 90% of vehicles were driving straight through the area, it doesn't really matter what the percentage was 5 years ago or 10 years ago.

Michael Robinson ● 568d

The South Chiswick LTN was implemented to prevent many thousands of vehicles using the residential streets of Grove Park as a ratrun to avoid Hogarth rndbt and to encourage more active travel in the area by making streets safer. It had nothing to do with national or London-wide estimates of traffic volumes on different road categories. It was all to do with actual traffic volumes on Chiswick streets that were measured. Residents are missing the restrictions now while they're suspended. Including many who were against them originally.Even a majority of the small and unrepresentative Grove Park Residents Group agree with restricting through-traffic. So much so that they are lobbying the Council to put cameras on every exit and entry route to eliminate all through traffic from the area including southbound which the current restrictions allow. Not even I go that far so it shows how welcome these measures are when they have been in operation for while!  As I regularly point out, the vast majority of Homefields Ward residents benefit from traffic restrictions. As do many in Southfield Ward. It is only Gunnersbury Ward in Chiswick that is now lagging and punishing its residents with high traffic volumes in minor streets as nobody will engage with the Councillors there. It isn't traffic restrictions that are unusual in Chiswick; it's the lack of them in one Ward that is now wilfully bearing the brunt.

Paul Campbell ● 568d

They've started already!

Robin Knight ● 568d

The figures around this are complex but what is beyond argument is that SatNavs have caused an increased rerouting of traffic through certain residential streets. It is reasonable for councils to act to counter this trend.

Mark Evans ● 568d

"These false figures were then used by councils to justify the introduction of restrictions in many boroughs (inc. Hounslow/ Chiswick)."Please provide evidence of this claim.I think you will find that justification of schemes came from actual traffic measurements on the roads affected.  For example, in the S Chiswick area alone there were well over 2 million individual vehicle readings taken at 20+ locations from combinations of  automatic traffic counters on the roadway and cameras beside the road.Of course, some people didn't like this data being gathered hence a number of them were vandalised on a single night last year, which Cllr Biddolph blamed on 'fox cubs'.

Michael Robinson ● 568d

Now we wait for more fake stats countering this information ….

Maggie Dodge ● 568d